Create, unless what I actually wanted, was for that something to evolve.

Is that the definition you want to use then?

Example: I want my kids to do well on their homework. But I don't do it for them. I want their intellect to grow and develop on its own, through their own efforts.

And yet your children remain human, therefore your analogy is a non sequitur.Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ This doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t support macro-evolution in any form or fashion. It would be like saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“when we are born, we evolve into adulthoodÃ¢â‚¬Â, but, the problem you run into is that we then Ã¢â‚¬Å“de-evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â as we slowly age, deteriorate and die. Therefore, according to your analogy Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution is defeated by de-evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â!

Mr evolutionist, "If you wanted something and you had a choice, would you wait for it to evolve or just create it?"

Create, unless what I actually wanted, was for that something to evolve.Example: I want my kids to do well on their homework. But I don't do it for them. I want their intellect to grow and develop on its own, through their own efforts.

Is that the definition you want to use then?And yet your children remain human, therefore your analogy is a non sequitur.Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ This doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t support macro-evolution in any form or fashion. It would be like saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“when we are born, we evolve into adulthoodÃ¢â‚¬Â, but, the problem you run into is that we then Ã¢â‚¬Å“de-evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â as we slowly age, deteriorate and die. Therefore, according to your analogy Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution is defeated by de-evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â!

Hi

I was responding to the question as asked, which refers to evolution in a general sense, and doesn't mention biological macro-evolution at all.

Imagine that the "something" that I want is a process of development, unfolding, or branching out -- an evolutionary process -- perhaps because I feel that the journey is as important as the destination. In that case, it makes no sense for me to create the end result (the destination). Rather, it makes sense for me to setup and enable the evolutionary process that I wanted (the journey).

Imagine that the "something" that I want is a process of development, unfolding, or branching out -- an evolutionary process -- perhaps because I feel that the journey is as important as the destination. In that case, it makes no sense for me to create the end result (the destination). Rather, it makes sense for me to setup and enable the evolutionary process that I wanted (the journey).

Creating IS a process, that requires (here's a big clue) intelligence. You're combining two completely seperate processes. One requires intelligence while the other, in the wild imaginations of evolutionists, does not. Hence why the question is asked, would you "Wait" for it, meaning just sit back and let it go, there's nothing for you to do. Or, use your intelligence to create (another process) it yourself.

Is that the definition you want to use then?And yet your children remain human, therefore your analogy is a non sequitur.Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ This doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t support macro-evolution in any form or fashion. It would be like saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“when we are born, we evolve into adulthoodÃ¢â‚¬Â, but, the problem you run into is that we then Ã¢â‚¬Å“de-evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â as we slowly age, deteriorate and die. Therefore, according to your analogy Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution is defeated by de-evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â!

Hi

I was responding to the question as asked, which refers to evolution in a general sense, and doesn't mention biological macro-evolution at all.

Imagine that the "something" that I want is a process of development, unfolding, or branching out -- an evolutionary process -- perhaps because I feel that the journey is as important as the destination. In that case, it makes no sense for me to create the end result (the destination). Rather, it makes sense for me to setup and enable the evolutionary process that I wanted (the journey).

That's of course is if you believe that evolution is a process. There is a process to cook a chicken. Actually IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d say there would be several processes we could use to cook a chicken such as spit roast it, oven bake it, fry it etc. To say something is a process implies that one know the outcome before one starts the process.

From what I understand of alleged evolution if a dinosaur is is evolving, it doesn't know that becoming a bird is its goal. That would imply that evolution was not blind to the future. It might even require some memory to have the goal to evolve into a bird. Even more so, it might be pressured to evolve in many different directions at the same time mightnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it? WhoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s to say?

The thing is a process is directed. Evolution is not. I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fathom how becoming a bird would necessarily make something survive better than it is while it is what it isÃ¢â‚¬â€especially since birds require more food proportionate to their body weight?

Creating IS a process, that requires (here's a big clue) intelligence. You're combining two completely seperate processes. One requires intelligence while the other, in the wild imaginations of evolutionists, does not. Hence why the question is asked, would you "Wait" for it, meaning just sit back and let it go, there's nothing for you to do. Or, use your intelligence to create (another process) it yourself.

Hi

For the theistic evolutionist, evolution does require the input of a master intelligence. So I suppose I just don't see the difference between creation and evolution the same as you in this respect.

Why wait? Well, for example, time may be an irrelevant consideration to me.

Or, perhaps I might actually like participating in a long, developmental process -- like planting and tending a garden, versus just buying fully grown plants.

Alternatively, maybe I want to start a creative process where the end-result, whilst constrained to meet my requirements, nonetheless contains unexpected self-organising or even random elements that I have not deliberately planned, because I like surprises.

For the theistic evolutionist, evolution does require the input of a master intelligence. So I suppose I just don't see the difference between creation and evolution the same as you in this respect.

Why wait? Well, for example, time may be an irrelevant consideration to me.

Or, perhaps I might actually like participating in a long, developmental process -- like planting and tending a garden, versus just buying fully grown plants.

Alternatively, maybe I want to start a creative process where the end-result, whilst constrained to meet my requirements, nonetheless contains unexpected self-organising or even random elements that I have not deliberately planned, because I like surprises.

I like your answers in this thread. I am especially intrigued by your last sentence, which is similar to what I have pondered in my mind for as long time when thinking about what God might actually have decided was the best way to follow in terms of a process of creation. I guess this is not surprising as I am not an advocate of predestination.

Imagine that the "something" that I want is a process of development, unfolding, or branching out -- an evolutionary process -- perhaps because I feel that the journey is as important as the destination. In that case, it makes no sense for me to create the end result (the destination). Rather, it makes sense for me to setup and enable the evolutionary process that I wanted (the journey).

That's of course is if you believe that evolution is a process. There is a process to cook a chicken. Actually IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d say there would be several processes we could use to cook a chicken such as spit roast it, oven bake it, fry it etc. To say something is a process implies that one know the outcome before one starts the process.

Hi

Where the spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art.-- Leonardo da Vinci

In the creative arts, it is not always necessary or even expected that the final artwork perfectly matches the initial vision. The process of working the substance of the artwork gives it a unique history, and hence a unique form. The process is an important part of the outcome.

Also, random and unpredictable processes can give great pleasure: games of chance, dancing, sports etc.

Take a game of football. We know in advance that at the end of the game how many players there will be on the field, the dimensions of that field, what clothing and equipment they will be wearing, the precise dimensions of the ball etc. But these are boring. The purpose of the game is to see how the process plays out, because its unpredictable, which is fun and exciting. Even though we know, that at the end of the game, no matter who won, there will always be a particular number of people dressed in a particular way standing in a particular area.

This is an illustration of what I meant when I said that the journey can be as important than the destination; the process can be an important part of the outcome.

From what I understand of alleged evolutionÃ‚Â if a dinosaur isÃ‚Â is evolving, it doesn't know that becoming a bird is its goal. That would imply that evolution was not blind to the future. It might even require some memory to have the goal to evolve into a bird. Even more so, it might be pressured to evolve in many different directions at the same time mightnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it? WhoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s to say?

Correct. Individuals don't evolve, they have the same characteristics throughout their life. Populations evolve, as the percentage of individuals with particular characteristics changes over time.

Evolution theory proposes that populations are constantly under tremendous pressure from all sorts of directions. The pressure is strong, because in nature the chance of dying before reproducing is very high -- the vast majority don't make it. And we have observed pressure coming from many directions in the field, such as predation, starvation, competition for food, disease, heat and cold, salinity, etc.

So populations are constantly performing a kind of balancing act between strong pressures from different directions. If there is a shift in any one of those pressures, the equilibrium point will shift, and those that are not well adapted to that new equilibrium point will tend to die before reproducing. Those that are well adapted, on the other hand, will have babies sharing their more suitable adaptations. And so on, so over time the characteristics of a population will change to track the pressures they face.

The thing is a process is directed. Evolution is not. I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fathom how becoming a bird would necessarily make something survive better than it is while it is what it isÃ¢â‚¬â€especially since birds require more food proportionate to their body weight? Your thoughts?

Yes, a bird needs proportionately more food, but because of the power of flight they also have access to more food. Its a balancing act.

I like your answers in this thread. I am especially intrigued by your last sentence, which is similar to what I have pondered in my mind for as long time when thinking about what God might actually have decided was the best way to follow in terms of a process of creation. I guess this is not surprising as I am not an advocate of predestination.

Thank you Geode.

Half the credit must go to Mike Summers, who has asked some very thought provoking questions.

God gave us a universe that's constantly full of surprises. Its reasonable to suppose that He likes surprises too.

HiI was responding to the question as asked, which refers to evolution in a general sense, and doesn't mention biological macro-evolution at all.

Without macroevolution, microevolution is meaningless, because microevolution is nothing more than adaptation within a kind/species, and macro is one kind/species Ã¢â‚¬Å“transformingÃ¢â‚¬Â into another over suggested Ã¢â‚¬Å“long periods of timeÃ¢â‚¬Â. But; a bird remains a bird; a fish remains a fish (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦), yet there is absolutely no empirical evidence of a fish ever being anything other than a fish (or a bird a bird etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). Therefore, macroevolution lacks any real credibility (other than hypothetically). The one relies upon the other for its hypothetical existence long before it can rely on the other for its theoretical existence (and so on). So an attempt to talk about one, while distancing yourself from the other is a futile hypothetical exercise of presupposition and Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â opinion. Therefore, when you attempt to posit one, you Ã¢â‚¬Å“beg the questionÃ¢â‚¬Â that demands an answer for the other, thus creating a tautology of faith based needs.

I don't understand from your comments how my analogy is unsound.

Because, my friend, you are suggesting a logical connection between your children learning and evolution analogy. But learning is a process driven (in the context of your assertion) by a parentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s/teachers desire and a childÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s/students desire to learn. We can prove this as an empirical fact via inductive observation, experimentation and observed (contemporaneous) historical data. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is an unproven (therefore fictitious) hypothesis that is bereft of foundation. Therefore, as the childÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s song goes Ã¢â‚¬Å“one of these things is not like the otherÃ¢â‚¬Â, and is therefore a Ã¢â‚¬Å“Non sequiturÃ¢â‚¬Â. There are many-many other problems with your analogy, but the points above alone, are enough to destroy your analogy.

Let me simplify.Imagine that the "something" that I want is a process of development, unfolding, or branching out -- an evolutionary process -- perhaps because I feel that the journey is as important as the destination. In that case, it makes no sense for me to create the end result (the destination). Rather, it makes sense for me to setup and enable the evolutionary process that I wanted (the journey).

The key word in your above statement is Ã¢â‚¬Å“imagineÃ¢â‚¬Â. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroevolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â hypothesis is rife with Ã¢â‚¬Å“imaginationÃ¢â‚¬Â that is posited as Ã¢â‚¬Å“factÃ¢â‚¬Â (thus becoming a faith based proposal). Therefore, whatever you wanted as a destination is still only imagined, as you have yet to achieve it, and therefore have not verified it. Just as every milestone of the journey is simply a figment of your imagination until you achieve them.

Teller: Create, unless what I actually wanted, was for that something to evolve.Example: I want my kids to do well on their homework. But I don't do it for them. I want their intellect to grow and develop on its own, through their own efforts.

Teller: I don't understand from your comments how my analogy is unsound.

Ron: Because, my friend, you are suggesting a logical connection between your children learning and evolution analogy. But learning is a process driven (in the context of your assertion) by a parentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s/teachers desire and a childÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s/students desire to learn. We can prove this as an empirical fact via inductive observation, experimentation and observed (contemporaneous) historical data. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, is an unproven (therefore fictitious) hypothesis that is bereft of foundation.

Hi

I certainly was arguing by analogy between education and evolution, that because education is a fruitful two-way teacher/student interaction, therefore evolution can be regarded as a fruitful two-way Creator/creation interaction. But I don't see how pointing out evolution is not empirically grounded damages the argument.

The OP's question was: "If you wanted something and you had a choice, would you wait for it to evolve or just create it?" This appears to assume, for the sake of discussion, that both evolution and creation are live options. Pointing out to me that evolution is not a live option, because its not empirically grounded, seems kind of beside the point of the question and my analogy.

Imagine that the "something" that I want is a process of development, unfolding, or branching out -- an evolutionary process -- perhaps because I feel that the journey is as important as the destination. In that case, it makes no sense for me to create the end result (the destination). Rather, it makes sense for me to setup and enable the evolutionary process that I wanted (the journey).

The key word in your above statement is Ã¢â‚¬Å“imagineÃ¢â‚¬Â. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroevolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â hypothesis is rife with Ã¢â‚¬Å“imaginationÃ¢â‚¬Â that is posited as Ã¢â‚¬Å“factÃ¢â‚¬Â (thus becoming a faith based proposal). Therefore, whatever you wanted as a destination is still only imagined, as you have yet to achieve it, and therefore have not verified it. Just as every milestone of the journey is simply a figment of your imagination until you achieve them.

(Here's the OP's question again: "If you wanted something and you had a choice, would you wait for it to evolve or just create it?")

My answer was -- if it was my decision -- then it depends. Because as a purely logical matter, the set of possible things that I might want can include evolutionary processes, alongside more mundane things like cats.

Now if I wanted a cat, then I would create it directly. But if I wanted an evolutionary process that ultimately led to cats, say, then I would kick off that process, because that is what most directly satisfies my want.

That's why I used the word "Imagine": its just a shorthand for "If it were the case that such and such, then I would do this".- Imagine I wanted a cat, then I would create one.- If it were the case that I wanted a cat, then I would create one.I intended that these sentences should have the same meaning.

As the originator of the 0P, I thought I might chime in here. If you've read any of my posts, I am sure you realize that I do not believe that evolution exists let alone is a process.

From my observation anytime there is an increase in complexity there is the presence of intelligence and life which usually are coupled together and control energy and matter.

For example; If you wanted water to go to the top floor of a 100 floor building, since it does not naturally happen, intelligent design is called upon to create something we call a pump. Solid matter contains the liquid water and energy is input to cause the water to do something it would not naturally do because of gravity. The energy input overcomes gravity and water is pushed up to the top floor. Without the presence of intelligence guiding matter and energy, water is not going up to the top floor. Likewise any process that we have observed is guided by intelligence ultimately. Name one that isn't.Remember God designed the universe to function as it does. He controls it. It does not control him. We are sub creators within the ordered system which typically can create physical things out of matter using energy & matter created by God.

Now let's look at randomness which isn't really all that random. From what I understand it's very difficult to generate random numbers even with a computer. At a certain point a pattern emerges (demonstrating order).

Let's take a simple example such as a volcano erupting. The volcano spewing forth hot molten lava produces a cone shape. It never produces a rectangular shape nor square. The randomness soon becomes predictable ( a pattern is established).

The essence of creativity is true randomness. One never know what a creator is going to create. Creativity is not predictable like randomness.

What science is trying to say is that randomness can create specific order, It has never been observed to do that. The creatures on this planet are unpredictable of their existence and so "radom" that intelligence had to be behind their existence. Look at the moon and mars. What has evo evolved there. A fish and a dog are examples of complete randomness. Not even science trys to say they are related.

Laws of the universe are called laws because they are very predictable. We can predict if a volcano erupts that it is not going to make a rectangle, nor is it going to create a square. Therefore, because it is so predictable it is not a function of creativity other than God ultimately.

A hurricane is predictable in its effect and it is not going to create order. It will destroy order & the effects of creativity very quickly. Randomness functions predictably within the parameters of laws of the universe.

As the molten lava of our volcano example overflows the top of the vent it gradually rolls down the side. The laws of thermodynamics cause the molten rock to give up its heat to the cooler surroundings. As it does, the molten rock changes state. That results in the volcano being broader at the bottom than at the top. Therefore, it is entirely predictable destroying everything in itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wake. Consequently people are not going to be happy to know a volcano is going to erupt anywhere near to them. They know it will destroy any order that they have created.

Energy Ã¢â‚¬Å“randomlyÃ¢â‚¬Â tends to rearrange matter predictably but undesirably. This is why evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s create the idea Evolution. Evolution is their alleged control of energy and matter. But without intelligence it is really an attempt to say that randomness can control randomness and cause complexity.

Intelligence causes creativity or specific order. The problem is the specific order becomes accepted quickly by humans. Intelligence controls energy and matter to increase complexity. At least that's the way I have observed it. Any process that you might find yourself in where the goal is the experience of the process itself is the same thing as having a goal at the end of the process. Your goal may be to go to Disneyland. Your additional goal could be to enjoy the scenery until you get to Disneyland. Once again the process is intelligent driven and not random. In other words if you choose not to know what the outcome is you are not really able to do that because you call an end to the process whenever you decide where you want been arrived at.

Your football example is driven by creators trying to out create each other which is an interesting idea. Yes , that is amusing. On the other hand itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s goal is fixed at score and with time. Creativty driven by intelligence makes the game radom.

Here's another example; Sometimes kids like to eat cookie dough. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not really designed to be eaten Ã¢â‚¬Å“raw.Ã¢â‚¬Â So, they make an ice cream called cookie dough ice cream. It's not the same but similar. The ultimate goal of cookie dough originally was to be baked to make cookies. But, because we are creative, we can stop the process anywhere we choose to and enjoy it right where we stopped it.

I doubt if you could create a cat. I trust you. Tell me if you have. I do appreciate your honest answer but, as somewhat expected no evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s have spoken. I thought they might be so vehement against the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“createÃ¢â‚¬Â that they canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even say it let alone acknowledge its existence. It reminds me of certain other fascist headsets that canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t acknowledge the existence of a certain country,

To go from a television ot to a Jet Airplane. How is that for Random?
There are no sky scrapers on Mars because there is no intelligence there working to make something random happen.

If an evo scientist cannot answer "create" to this question, it goes to show just how bad the relationship between creationists and evo science has sunken.

Mr evolutionist, "If you wanted something and you had a choice, would you wait for it to evolve or just create it?"

If you want to drill a productive oil well through low porosity shale do you wait for the oil to migrate or the rock to change properties or do you drill(create) horizontally so that your well has greater contact with the formation??? Obviously you do the latter.

What if you only like to run outside when it's 55 degrees?? Do you wait for the temperature to drop or do you make(create) the temperature drop as desired?? Well it has to be the former.

There isn't always a choice. So can you apply your question to biology??? Otherwise you've shown us nothing.

If you want to drill a productive oil well through low porosity shale do you wait for the oil to migrate or the rock to change properties or do you drill(create) horizontally so that your well has greater contact with the formation???Ã‚Â Obviously you do the latter.Ã‚Â

What if you only like to run outside when it's 55 degrees??Ã‚Â Do you wait for the temperature to drop or do you make(create) the temperature drop as desired??Ã‚Â Well it has to be the former.Ã‚Â

There isn't always a choice.Ã‚Â So can you apply your question to biology???Ã‚Â Otherwise you've shown us nothing.

I told one of my colleagues that we could love everyone if we chose to. He called himself an atheist. But we managed to be friends anyway. He told me a Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â which he smugly believed had trapped me. He said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Suppose, you, your family, and another family that you do not know ere in a restaurant having dinner. A gunman comes in points a gun at you and says that someone in here is going to die and tells you you're going to make the decision who it is. The gunmen says, Ã¢â‚¬Å“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s your choice buddy, your family or the strangerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s family! So make the decision quickly.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Here is what I would tell the Gunman. Ã¢â‚¬Å“My choice in that no one die!Ã¢â‚¬Â He might say to me, Ã¢â‚¬Å“That is not one of the choices you have.Ã¢â‚¬Â To which I might say, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Oh but I have as many choices as I choose to create. Neverthess, you are the one that has the gun and you are the one making a choces of what you choose to do with it. And if the people next door hear gun shots, they are most certainly going to call the police. If you try and flee most certainly someone is going to notice. Moreover, the police have radios and a system to help catch and contain people that do things like what you are telling yourself you want to do. As far as I am concerned. Have I or any of the others in this room ever done anything wrong to you?"

"You are outnumbered. The overwhelming odds are that you will be captured and given a whole lot of time in jail if not executed if you choose to kill. You are trying to convince me that your choice is my choice and it is not going to work with me. I think, If you will kill somebody you surely will lie and I certainly don't trust someone who would break one of God's laws deliberately. I've made my choice that I want no one to die--including you. If I were you I would back out of this restaurant and leave.Ã¢â‚¬Â My colleague said nothing.

If you tell yourself that you have no choice that is a choice. Your mind will believe that. If you tell your mind to create some choices your mind will do that. I in no way exhausted the choices my mind could create for the mentioned event But, I am trying to learn not to be so long winded in my posts!

You always have a choice you are not a robot. Stop lying to yourself and even worse believing it. Lying to yourself puts you in the "deceived" category and maybe you don't want to be there? It's your choice though.

In terms of your last statement about biology, there are 4 million to approximately 30 million species which represent so many choices that they would, to evolve them all I expect, exceed the number of stars in the universe. To me, it's not that choices exist, it who made them. I have a hard time believing that some non existant entity called evolution could make so many "precision" choices.

All the bestMike

One more thing, like and dislikes are choices. I don't like paying taxes but then I like the fact that there is a concrete road in front of my house instead of a mud pit...etc. If you thought running in warmer weather were more beneficial than not running at all, I bet you could even make the choice to run at 57f etc? That is if you chose to make that choice.

If you want to drill a productive oil well through low porosity shale do you wait for the oil to migrate or the rock to change properties or do you drill(create) horizontally so that your well has greater contact with the formation??? Obviously you do the latter.

What if you only like to run outside when it's 55 degrees?? Do you wait for the temperature to drop or do you make(create) the temperature drop as desired?? Well it has to be the former.

There isn't always a choice. So can you apply your question to biology??? Otherwise you've shown us nothing.

Great post Mike.

More on the Biology part. Animals have choices too, wether if one wants to drink at a waterhole notorious for crocodiles, or push on (despite feeling thirsty), its all a choice. Such choices add to the random aspect of life, without it everything will be, (as Mike said), Robots.

I told one of my colleagues that we could love everyone if we chose to. He called himself an atheist. But we managed to be friends anyway.Ã‚Â He told me a Ã¢â‚¬Å“hypotheticalÃ¢â‚¬Â which he smugly believed had trapped me. He said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Suppose, you, your family, andÃ‚Â another family that you do not know ere in a restaurant having dinner. A gunman comes in points a gun at you and says that someone in here is going to die and tells you you're going to make the decision who it is. The gunmen says,Ã‚Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s your choice buddy, your family or the strangerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s family!Ã‚Â So make the decision quickly.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Here is what I would tell the Gunman. Ã¢â‚¬Å“My choice inÃ‚Â that no one die!Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â He might say to me, Ã¢â‚¬Å“That is not one of the choices you have.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â To which I might say, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Oh but I have as many choices as I choose to create. Neverthess, you are the one that has the gun and you are the one making a choces of what you choose to do with it.Ã‚Â And if the people next door hearÃ‚Â gun shots, they are most certainly going to call the police. If you try and flee most certainly someone is going to notice. Moreover, the police have radios and a system to help catch and contain people that do things like what you are telling yourself you want to do. As far as I am concerned.Ã‚Â Have I or any of the others in this room ever done anything wrong to you?"Ã‚Â

"You are outnumbered. The overwhelming odds are that you will be captured and given a whole lot of time in jail if not executed if you choose to kill. You areÃ‚Â trying to convince me that your choice is my choice and it is not going to work with me. I think, If you will kill somebody you surely will lie and I certainly don't trust someone who would break one of God's laws deliberately. I've made my choice that I want no one to die--including you.Ã‚Â If I were you I would back out of this restaurant and leave.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â My colleagueÃ‚Â said nothing.

If you tell yourself that you have no choice that is a choice.Ã‚Â Your mind will believe that. If you tell your mind to create some choices your mind will do that. I in no way exhausted the choices my mind could create for the mentioned eventÃ‚Â But, I am trying to learn not to be so long winded in my posts!Ã‚Â

You always have a choice you are not a robot. Stop lying to yourself and even worse believing it. Lying to yourself puts you in the "deceived" category and maybe you don't want to be there? It's your choice though.

In terms of your last statement about biology, there are 4 million to approximately 30 million species which represent so many choices that they would, to evolve them allÃ‚Â I expect,Ã‚Â exceed the number of stars in the universe. To me, it's not that choices exist, it whoÃ‚Â made them. I have a hard time believing that some non existant entity called evolution could make so many "precision" choices.

All the bestMike

You don't have a choice about something as simple as who your parents are or where you're born. So no, you absolutely do not always have a choice. On the topic of evolution, it's decidedly non choice. You don't know you want something until you need it. Then if you already have it you're doing well.

One more thing, like and dislikes are choices. I don't like paying taxes but then I like the fact that there is a concrete road in front of my house instead of a mud pit...etc. If you thought running in warmer weather were more beneficial than not running at all, I bet you could even make the choice to run at 57f etc? That is if you chose to make that choice.

That's not what you said. You said if you wanted something do you create it or wait for it. Whether or not you agree to run in 57 degrees is beside the point.

Hi Tharock220
[quote]
"You don't have a choice about something as simple as who your parents are or when or where you're born. So no, you absolutely do not always have a choice. On the topic of evolution, it's decidedly non choice. You don't know you want something until you need it. Then if you already have it you're doing well.

That's not what you said. You said if you wanted something do you create it or wait for it. Whether or not you agree to run in 57 degrees is beside the point.--"Tharock220

Well I guess you got me there . They say not to assume. let me clarify. I would not consider you or anyone else a person before at least you were conceived and born. To me only if you exist can you make decisions or choices. I am inclined to believe that people are not their bodies. We live in our body. It's our home. But, it is not the essence of who we are. Take Stephen Hawkins for example. He is appreciated for his intellect not his body.

If you raise a baby from China in America and expose it only to English would you expect it to speak Fluent Chinese? What is more significant, genetics or choice? According to the mapping of the gene genome, we are 99.99% the same. Therefore, one would think that human personalities Ã¢â‚¬Å“shouldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ be more similar They are not. While genetics plays some what of a part, the vast majority of who and what a person is happens after they are born.

That's good to know. Suppose we had a horse thief in our immediate genetic line. That does not mean that we have no choice but to be a horse thief. I think that to much emphasis is placed on genetics and not enough on choice. Choice ia power!

As far as evo sciences' imaginary friend "evolution" is concerned, as a creationists , evo is not an issue. I have no comments at this time for something that I think does not exist.

In terms of needing things, the thought comes before the emotion and behavior in my mind. Also in my life, I do not think I have needs. As our brother, Paul said, "I have learned in whatever state I find myself to be content."

I am afraid I do not understand what you mean in the last lines of your post.

As the originator of the 0P, I thought I might chime in here. If you've read any of my posts, I am sure you realize that I do not believe that evolution exists let alone is a process.

Hi

I'm assuming you accept that microevolution exists as an observed process.

From my observation anytime there is an increase in complexity there is the presence of intelligence and life which usually are coupled together and control energy and matter... Likewise any process that we have observed is guided by intelligence ultimately. Name one that isn't.Remember God designed the universe to function as it does.

You're going to have to define how you mean "complexity" here. I can think of plenty of things that look to me like they become more complex through the operation of purely mechanical laws (like crystals).

Regardless, I agree with you that God created the universe and put its laws into operation, which give rise to complexities that we see today. Such as the evolution of organic life.

Now let's look at randomness which isn't really all that random. From what I understand it's very difficult to generate random numbers even with a computer. At a certain point a pattern emerges (demonstrating order) ... The essence of creativity is true randomness. One never know what a creator is going to create. Creativity is not predictable like randomness.

I agree with all this. Natural processes that are random (stochastic) nevertheless fall within predictable probability parameters (e.g. radioactive decay). Creativity is a completely different sort of "randomness" to this - it is unpredictable.

I concur that conscious beings exhibit unpredictable creativity, which implies an intelligence behind their existence. But this doesn't undercut theistic evolution, which claims that the Creator is behind the existence of conscious beings, via the mechanism of organic evolution.

And by the way, science does say that fish and dogs are related -- in fact, dogs are a modified form of fish.

Energy Ã¢â‚¬Å“randomlyÃ¢â‚¬Â tends to rearrange matter predictably but undesirably. This is why evoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s create the idea Evolution. Evolution is their alleged control of energy and matter. But without intelligence it is really an attempt to say that randomness can control randomness and cause complexity.

Theistic evolutionists do say there is an intelligence behind evolution.